INURA Common Project
INURA Common Project : A Contribution to the Berlin workshop (Athens team and comments by Marvi) Α. The Common Project so far: an assessment The present text is neither aiming to be a proposal for a new project, nor a critique, but an effort to take the existing work further. In the following points we try to incorporate critiques and proposals made by INURA members as well as the proposals that were produced during the workshops in Zurich. Consider the following as working notes. First of all, the concept of the Common Project and the fact that it actually happened combining so many parameters and with input of so many and diverse cities has been a great achievement. The initial idea, the fact it was developed, the work that was produced and the discussions that were generated initiated several processes of thinking, discussing and analysing our cities and urban phenomena. It revealed commonalities among very diverse cities but it also highlighted the different meanings that scientific or analytical terms might have in different contexts. Even more, it inspired us to try to think in diverse ways about cities and our cities. The work produced is extremely rich in ideas, representations and observations and it can be a great resource for future work. Exactly this is what we would like to discuss for the future. Problematique It seems that the title “New Metropolitan Mainstream” and the introductory text are somehow vague, trying to adopt a scientific (analytical) neutrality thus lacking a 'political' edge. Perhaps the framework should be described in a more inclusive way and with more pointed (targeted) terms. Although the included elements are very significant, the broader categories present certain problems and could maybe be restructured. During the implementation (materialisation) of the project, the teams faced problems that relate to contextual differences. These problems were dealt with in a variety of ways from the teams and these approaches could be used as a starting point for a critical evaluation of the project and as possible guidelines for its future. What next? The following proposal wishes to further enhance the initial concept of the common project, as we understand it, namely the description and mapping of an existing ‘Mainstream’ discourse and imaginary. This ‘Mainstream’ has been internationalised through policy guidelines and white papers of international organisations and adopted and implemented – with variations – by different governments all over the world, in the process of neoliberalisation of economies and societies. Our idea focuses on two main directions: 1) to add or put emphasis on missing aspects (part C) and, 2) to make a clear distinction between the mainstream as a discourse or recipe, and the social processes, consequences, collateral damages, social injustices that it creates or is in specific ways implicated in (part D). This of course is a somehow formal choice, and it will certainly create theoretical doubts about were the one ends and the other starts or issues of timeline (what started what). We are very aware that history and social processes are not linear – even more so when considering different contexts – and that both the historically formed processes and the new adopted policies have an interactive relation. It is a very conscious choice made in order not to miss the project’s initial point of departure and central concept but also in order to avoid transforming it to a a project about everything and nothing on the same time. Β. Political perspective: An INURA project Why? And For Who? Not just another academic text, but an INURA text about cities in the context of crises (many of them). It should go beyond listing and mapping different process. It also needs a political position(ing). Silvia formulates it as: “a twofold aim for an alternative INURA project: to unveil the impacts of NMM strategies and policies on our cities (how they are transforming processes of “social production of space”, who is included or excluded, who is gaining or losing, …) to assess the relationship between NMM and some processes (old and new) that characterized our social systems and their injustices: dispossession, exploitation, repression, contempt (some of these processes could be an effect of NMM or related to NMM but some others will be probably brought on by others old or new policies/politics and we want to investigate them). This give space to the historical perspective and geographical differences: the NMM could be a similar processes but the contest has its specific peculiarities (and specific injustice). to identify ways (both in research and action) to resist or subvert those strategies and policies, and to build other possible urban worlds.” The principles of INURA declaration should be incorporated both in the text and in the broader framework of the project. “A project by people involved in action and research in localities and cities, committed to sharing experiences and information in order to further understand the problems affecting their areas (1)”. As such, the project may need to place greater emphasis on the right to the city and on the possible alternative worlds. It could also highlight the role of INURA in bringing together research and action as well as making information available … The second aim, introduce a political issue: the social and environmental injustice, i.e. the consciousness from which we start. This issue is related with the most of the new categories that we are proposing. This bring in also the suffering (and possibly the will of transforming societies) of the lower and dispossessed classes, groups, persons, that we have to bring in our research as a subject of research (not an object). A key point is the perceptions (relational space) of these groups / persons and we have to investigate them with specific means of enquiry. We need to “bring them in as a subject of research” (research with, con-ricerca) through specific means of inquiry: not we that talk about social processes and social groups but the subjects of research that talk for her / himself lived experiences. This can help in overcoming the problem of superimposing too soon our “old” concepts on processes that are new and unexpected. These processes are all space time related. C. ‘Clarifying ’ concepts – Theoretical frame of the project As already mentioned there seems to be a need for greater clarification of the concepts and terms used, in order to allow for the diversity of processes and phenomena to be fully expressed. Moreover, there are concepts and analytical elements that are missing from the projects but they were discussed or questioned before; concepts that are currently significant for the urban. Thus we propose the following (but by no means the only) concepts to be introduced or be further discussed and clarified, trying to also keep in mind how these can be incorporated or related to the categories and the mapping process. 1. Neoliberalism and the city: one political common sense, plurality of socio-spatial processes The current, market-oriented urban policy and planning orthodoxy (that we can term conventionally as Neoliberal Urban Mainstream) may be approached on two levels: First as an ideological fabric. NUM is a discourse, a cognitive framework and a model of acting (politically, socially and economically) in the urban space. It is a way of defining issues in the urban space (regarding development, public order, administration and so on) and a set of tools deemed as pertinent for the confrontation of these issues. From this point of view, the NUM is an internationally diffused political scheme that re-appears in different urban realities as a one-fits-all recipe for the well-being of cities. Second, the NUM may be approached as a contextually variable process, that results from the meeting of the above-mentioned ideological orthodoxy with different ‘local’ political, social and economic structures. Despite their ideological uniformity, the NUM recipes have different outcomes regarding rates of growth, social inequalities, urban morphology and so on. This differentiation depends upon numerous contextual parameters as, amongst many others, the power relation between political and economic urban elites, the composition of urban economic activity, the relation of central government with urban authorities, the development of urban social movements and so on. Within this general framework, the cartographical project may survey these two distinct levels of urban reality: from the one side, the traces of the implementation of the NUM as political orthodoxy (mega-projects, re-development schemes, gentrification areas etc.) and from the other side, the socio-spatial processes which are directly or indirectly affected by this implementation (poverty, oppression, social resistances etc.) 2. Urbanity? What do words like urban, urbanity, metropolitan, suburban, centre, centrality... etc mean? What are the geoghraphical units of comparison of the project? The issue of urbanity has been central to the whole project (see Silvia, Marvi but also Ute and Roger highlighting the lack of the other half of the metropolis, namely the suburbs). The main text discusses in great length the evolution and transformations of cities in the last years, giving greater significance to the “re-discovery of the urban” - a process that could be further discussed since many cities didn't have the same / similar experiences. INURA's second point «Committed to the empowerment of people in their neighbourhoods, communities, cities and region» may resolve potential problems since it includes all these levels without providing a detailed account of the transformations of the urban experience in the last decades or how the urban develops in different levels and diverse ways. Α comparative project of world cities tries to put together -and in doing so compare- processes, parts, experiences, rather than rigid comparative contexts (Robinson 2010). Although we all have in mind a structural cause - the neoliberal doctrine- guiding the development of cities, this - as we understood with the work done so far- by no means creates uniform or common environments or by no means leads to common processes. Possibly, a discussion about the ‘authentic’ urban and/or metropolitan experience might not prove to be fruitful. Marvi recommends to deal with urbanity in terms of spaces and places of lived experience and difference (Urbanity as lived spaces and difference) so as to include the range of urban experience from diverse cities. In any case the neoliberal doctrine, as it is integrated in different socio-spatial contexts, affects centrality-suburbanization patterns in different ways. Finally, we need a unifying approach to the contemporary urban experience, against fragmentation and divergence, as expressed «5. We must resist and reverse the process of polarization of income and quality of environment, both in the social fragmentation of our cities and the divergence of core and periphery regions» 3. The role of the state and the welfare state The role of the state (in its various facets) has been central both as a field transformed by the Neoliberal Mainstream (dismantling of welfare state, disinvestment by the state, deregulation of various fields etc) and as the guarantor for Neoliberal Mainstream’s spreading and imposition (see comment of Edwards on the safeguarding role of the states towards the banks and financial sector and Silvia on the responsibility of local administrations). Within the Neoliberal Urban Mainstream context and with the shrinkage of welfare structures, it is very often the case that the risk of development is taken by the state. It seems necessary to illustrate the role that administrations have in willingly adopting positions and policies in favor of the big capital’s quest for more profits on the detriment of the societies they represent. Mapping central or local policies that are associated with such choices could clarify these aspects of the Urban Neoliberal Mainstream. Participation of inhabitants or people in decision making processes could be seen as a trade-off for a government (and parties) that is no more able to represent societies (or a huge part of it) or as a part of the neoliberal governance. But could be also part of what John Friedmann call the good governance. INURA declaration say: 2 We are committed to the empowerment of people in their neighbourhoods, communities, cities and region. We have to investigate which are the relations between the empowerment of the INURA declaration and the forms of (very often institutionalized) participation that are growing in our societies: EU and many international institution ask for them. 4. Commodification – Entrepreneurialism A central implication of the Neoliberal Urban orthodoxy has been the commodification of cities’ spaces and the perception of city (spaces, processes, people…) as a ‘growth and capital machine’, imposing the entrepreneurial logic behind all processes and relationships formulating urban and everyday life. This has resulted in completely excluding urban dwellers from the production of “their” space and the transformation of the qualities of urban space – difference, encounter, creativity – as parts of the economic dispositive and of the systematic exploitation of productivity gains (Silvia’s comment). Competition amongst cities and the internationalisation of «attractive» urban landscapes has been a central mechanism for implementing the Neoliberal Urban Mainstream. 5. Racism, Class and gender (INURA declaration 3 and 4 that relate with “domestic work” or reproduction work, so the gender role as something that have to be addressed; production work and reproduction work have to be understood and transformed in relation to each other) We agree with the points raised in the INURA meeting in Zurich that there seems to be an absence of the debate around the issues of Race/Racism, Gender and Class in the NNM project. We suggest that we enhance the project’s focus from the ‘ideal’-type NNM processes to include these themes and their impact on urban social space. Issues such as the rising inequalities and their subsequent spatial transformations, social mix – segregation – polarization, urban conflicts, the rise of racism and the far right (with its spatial implications), or gendered spatial perspectives are recurrent urban concerns that seem to become even more topical in the last years. The feminist philosophy of differences (Liberia di Milano, Luisa Muraro1) from its start relate the discover of the female differences with the subversion and the transgression otherwise, it say, call for difference would be an archaism. Nevertheless the category of the difference as it is in the patriarchy come out very often as an essentialism. We have to address this. The most of the social-economic researches show that in many countries the female unemployment is much higher than the male one; the income for the same job is lower; there is still a glass ceiling that prevent women to access the high management positions. In country like Italy it is still frequent that women are killed by men that are not ready to accept their freedom of choice. This seems to be the inheritance of patriarchy: but what role is played by neoliberism and NMM? In that vein recent feminist critiques can be very helpful in pointing out a set of issues to be discussed by INURA Groups. For instance feminist critiques have shown that, the gendered processes of restructuring introduce a complex set of occupational inequalities and strategies of social reproduction, which the initial formulations of both the ‘global city’ and the ‘welfare regime’ theorizations have not taken into account. Another stream of research critically combines theories of post-Fordist social stratification with economic geography to study intersecting class and gender or class and race inequalities in world cities and their interrelation with decisions by the state and the administrators. In that sense we found very timely the points raised in the INURA Declaration: Migrant cities …The urban world, both in the North and in the South, is more and more characterized by social polarization, spatial segregation and legal disintegration (sans papiers). Basic social needs are not met for a growing part of the population. Wealth and poverty continue to be geographically differentiated as expressed in segmented housing, public and social spaces, health services, education, access to basic resources such as land, water, and food). Racism on the rise Globalizing cities are diverse. Yet, as racism, ethnic violence and intolerance have become natural ingredients of the neoliberal global order, forms of social organization based on solidarity among communities of urban residents and workers have come under attack both ideologically and physically. Whereas cities have often been the laboratories of progressive social experiment, democratization, autonomy, collective organization and urban liberation, they have now come to be associated more frequently with dystopic forms of hate-filled politics and more or less organized populist or even fascist violence. 7. Links to housing, employment and environmental campaigns (INURA declaration 6) Issues to be mapped Housing is not at all present in the dominant neoliberal discourse. Apart from the privatisation and commodification of urban space, the neoliberal doctrine also means (re)allocating public funds with new priorities or restricting – if not minimising - funding for traditional sectors like housing, social infrastructure etc. Social housing is included in the ‘necessary’ cuts in the frame of the public sector and welfare state restructuring in the name of economic ‘viability’. The public policies tend to finance (even if with less money than before) the home-ownership of middle income and a small number of dwellings of social housing meant to be only for the most deprived. But the increasing housing problems, that tend to involve more and more even the middle classes (and Is one of the cause of the new poverties), is shown by the increasing number of evictions for default in paying rent or mortgages, by housing movements that squat in the main urban areas and by a growing spaces of "slum" settlements and squatting of decayed building without any services very often inhabited by migrant. Precariousness as a constant condition of labour and everyday life in its various facets... Environmental issues, urgent need to reject the current model of city development, environmental campaigns on various issues (green spaces in cities, mobility, privatisation of commons (water, land...) 8. Informality Informality is a term that carries different meanings in different cities, and as such it requires further clarification. Various words in different context refer to informal phenomena: spontaneous, non-regulated, illegal, clandestine… There are many kinds of informal processes (spatial, economic, social etc) and they can be formalised, tolerated, implicitly promoted or fought. There are informal processes from the top as well as bottom-up and there are informal processes that are widespread or exclusive (as a practice of particular groups). Informality may also be considered as a neoliberal tactic since it keeps people in a state of uncertainty (and thus of eminent exploitation and control) while privileging others. Informal processes do not occur in isolation to regulated/formal processes. They are parallel, intertwined processed bringing together different spaces, economies people. The role of the state is always very significant/central in these relationships by sustaining a ‘state of exception’ and defining the limits of legality and regulation. Informal practices can be seen both as a survival practice of deprived people allowing them to access income, housing etc and on the other side as powerful mechanisms of control and exploitation. It is clear that informal practices (on a spatial or economic level) are not the exclusive ‘privilege’ of the poor. Middle class and elite informality can be found in various settings (not only third world ones as a. Roy has showed), although at that case we might also characterise it as corruption. 9. Crisis Bearing in mind that the current (another) crisis is ongoing and affecting several cities, we think that attempting to understand its causes and its different impacts on socio-spatial conditions and on everyday life should be incorporated in the project in a clear way. Leaving Shumpeter’s ‘creative destruction’ of capitalism behind, the current situation is yet another metropolitan crisis that echoes Soja’s comment about a ‘restructuring-generated crisis’ several years ago. Through the pretext of ‘crisis’ we can observe attempts of ‘normalising’ and pushing for initiatives and policies that would otherwise face strong opposition. Through the ‘emergency’ of this crisis, rights are violated; political systems become more and more authoritarian; a ‘politics of fear’ is becoming the dominant mode of representing reality while simultaneously turning social groups against Others (usually the weaker Others); while the emergency becomes the rule rather than the exception. As such, the discourses of the crises with their ‘emergency’ framework substantially transform cities, the way policies and projects are decided and endorsed and the overall decision-making. Tracing and mapping the different levels of these crises, the relevant processes and spatial transformations might be useful for our common project. Competition amongst cities as providing the motives for the attraction of international investment (through various mega-event, mega-projects etc), as well as changes (if there are) within the rhetoric of the Neoliberal Urban Mainstream should be revised within the conditions of the current economic crisis. About concepts & words: Issues of comparability… Here we note some issues, that emerged in the process of the Common project revision, to be considered for facilitating a comparative approach and for illustrating local variations of processes: 1. The historical context of each city is significant. The detrimental consequences of neoliberal policies (how they are manifested, which groups are affected more or less) are a combination of the local historical context and conditions, of (pre)existing structures and of choices springing from a new hegemonic metropolitan mainstream. 2. We need to be careful with the transfer of concepts generated within specific spatial (economic-social-political-historical) contexts since local variations, differentiations and details might rend them meaningless. We need to discover why some terms and concepts are international or worldwide understandable and other not: who decide it? We have to address the cultural hegemony of institution as the World bank or as the churches (the different churches that have never been afraid to superimpose their diktat) or the cultural hegemony of a social process as the Capitalistic Market and the Money. It is a power issue. 3. Constructing concepts “able to travel”: in order to make a comparative project viable our concepts should be constructed along scales of abstraction. This requires a certain balance between gaining in extension of phenomena and experiences covered and maybe loosing some of the specificities, local details or peculiarities (and vice versa). 4. Finally, the difference of meanings that popular terms have for different cities, the diverse usage and the ‘adventures’ of terms in different contexts, their incompatibility and/or lack of clarity is actually a major asset of the project. This is not solely a language concern, but something that illustrates contextual differences as well as variations of the described phenomena. Although this can make the whole process lengthier and more complex, we think that these variations should be highlighted and explored further rather than covered up. D. Layers of analysis and categories Taking into account all of the above observations we made an attempt to propose a possible advancement of the common project. Our central idea is to organise the mapping project along five layers of analysis conceptually defined, each one of which contains a number of categories. These are: Context / Neoliberal Mainstream/ Socio-spatial processes/ Crisis / Right to the city: reclaiming and alternatives Some clarifications about the cartographical process: 1. Any item on the map (project, process, space…) can correspond to more than one layer 2. Each Layer of analysis can have a different colour, while the categories belonging to them can have variations, intonations, shades, gradients etc of this colour. 3. Abstract processes (eg. Processes along time, public policies, privatisation of commons, or corruption) can be mapped using conceptual mapping techniques (with symbols, colours etc) and text, hyperlinks or other media (pictures, video, sound etc, see inura declaration 10) 4. The list of categories under each layer of analysis remains open: local variations or new categories can be added according to local differentiated and particular experiences. Categories that are strongly questioned (eg. gentrification) could be further discussed in order to allow to different perspectives and understandings to be expressed, LAYER 1 : City description and contextual information This layer gives the «conventional» information about a city, urban context ... intending to depict basic information about the city and contextual specificities necessary for the minimum understanding of the processes mapped and of the relevance amongst cities participating. Basic information such as geomorhpological / ecological information, income/ educational level distribution, ethnic dispersion or migratory flows / gender issues could be indicated with small maps on the side which can be easily found (some cities already did that in the initial attempt, eg. see London). Other information could include the traditional type and size of welfare state or other significant historical conditions etc. We think that various path-dependent facets of urban informality2 (if present) should be considered as part of the traditional urbanisation process of each city/place. ATTENTION! We not want to map everything (we are not making an atlas and we do not want to loose the focus of the project). It should be open to each city to decide which further information is considered necessary for the understanding of the specific context. Some of this information might be mappable some other might need text or statistics. In any case, local teams should use what is handy to them. Urban region (1) (the boundary of the metropolitan areas, relation between urban and rural, new suburban areas) Central areas (2) Planning politics and 'informality ' · public - state urban planning · private urban planning · mixte urban planning · …. · Self-made buildings (auto-construction popular) · informal settlements (11) · informal markets · … Other… ' ' ''' LAYER 2: Neoliberal Urban Mainstream This layer intends to describe and trace the hegemonic discourse affecting the development of cities in recent years. This discourse/ doctrine consists of both a ‘bright’ /glossy imaginary about flagship projects, reinvention of city centres, urban developments, commercialisation, cultural entrepreneurial clusters, creative classes etc, but also a ‘dark side’ (which is mainly an economic doctrine) about the need to privatise public sector and public assets, the shrinking of the welfare state and zero tolerance doctrines etc. We view it as the main focus (concept) of the project and the point of departure to unravel the recent transformations that are taking place in our cities. Questions to consider within this scope are (a) whether it is a dominant discourse? Do we conceptualise it, depict it in a useful for our purposes way; (b) Is it a world wide, common phenomenon; © Which are its local variations and differentiated processes; '''2Α: Spaces formed by the NUM hegemonic discourse and imaginary (spaces of city marketing through image) · Flagship projects (12) · Trendy neighbourhoods (4) · Strategic urban infrastructure projects (13) · Important events and festivals (14) · Social and cultural policies that produce collective heritage (the possible positive side or side effect of NUM) ) (or collective heritage produced by social and cultural policies; this means that we map the collective heritage produced) · Various Projects · … 2B: Spaces of accumulation by dispossession: privatization, commercialisation, financialisation, repression (displacement) · Public spaces and services (public space, housing, education, health) · Natural resources (e.g. dispossession of rivers, water, land, green spaces, dispossession of quality of air through pollution, etc.) · Privatisation of cultural heritage / identity (examples: exploitation through tourism) · Areas of privatization (7) · Areas of (private or state led or PPP) reinvestment · Gentrification or neighbourhood upgrading and displacement (as a recipe contained in the neoliberal doctrine) · Areas of intense neighbourhood upgrading or urban regeneration (8 and 9) · … 2C: Zero tolerance ' · Restrictions or violations of civic and social rights, · repression and control, · clearance operations · … (Perhaps the new spaces of extreme exploitation of labour should stay here because it is, as accumulation by dispossession, a key feature of NMM. But this could be further discussed) LAYER 3 : Socio-spatial processes & ‘collateral damages’ (or spaces of socio-spatial injustice) The aim here is to map the parallel social processes related, directly or conditionally, with the implementation of the Neoliberal Urban Mainstream in cities. It is an attempt to record the «dark side of the moon» from a critical perspective, what has been called the collateral damages (‘necessary’ and/or ‘unavoidable’ according to the cynicism of the Neoliberal doctrine) of modernisation and development processes or as stated in the Inura declaration 8 “resisting the damaging effects of globalisation”. '''3A. Spaces of poverty ' · areas of disinvestment (10) · areas of exclusion and marginalization · ‘new poverty’ (downgrading of middle classes) · displacement and evictions · … '3B. Spaces of corruption and elite strategies (legal and illegal) ' · Projects, plans or public works heavily affected by corruption (could be expressed by a point on an area designed by other categories as flagship, or state led reinvestment) · strategic plans designed by the ruling groups (outside and beyond urban planning legislation) · plans and projects by the "growth coalition" · speculative illegal (or almost illegal) buildings and illegal elite villas · … '3C. Exclusionary Zones ' · gated communities /exclusionary zones (5) · very high income area (6) · public and private spaces with restricted or controlled access, private security · … '3D. Spaces of repression and control ' · Control and repression in public spaces (civic codes, cameras, extreme policing…) · detention centres · Extreme repression (area of militarization, Para militarization) · illegal detention centres · … '3Ε. New spaces of extreme exploitation of labour ' · private services using flexible and very low paid work (also the knowledge work) · flexicurity dogma and precarious working conditions · special production zones (ex. Sweatshops, maquillas) · Areas of production plants almost illegal or illegal, and /or without or with few workers rights (industry, agriculture...) · … '''3F. Where the recipe fails · failed and grounded (large) projects (15) · … LAYER 4: Geographies of the Crisis Attempting to map the spatial effects of the crisis: · In the name of the crisis: ‘crisis’ as an opportunity to accelerate processes of neoliberalisation (deregulation) of the system and shrinking/privatisation of public sector (privatisation of public services, «fast track»3 frameworks of investment procedures, violation of existing regulations and rights etc · Areas with extended phenomena of foreclosures and seizures. · Failed investment (eg. Dumbai) · Reinforced authoritarianism in the name of the crisis: policing, control and repression · Places of fear · ... LAYER 5: Reclaimed and Alternative Spaces Right to the city and spatial justice. Here we attempt to map the cracks in the hegemonic model and the spaces/places where resistance is present in cities. Contested spaces, resistances, social mobilisations and movements, alternative projects, utopian attempts… This is what INURA does par excellence: creating strong and diverse visions of the future urban life (INURA declaration 9). Here again, it is up to local teams to define what is considered resisting or contesting, alternative or utopian. In some cases progressive local policies implemented by local administrations might be equally alternative than any other social or “bottom-up” attempt. 5 Α. Contested spaces · Fights to gain rights, spaces, access to · reclaiming · contested spaces, contested projects · conflicts about identities of places · … 5 Β. Building possible urban worlds · Developing alternatives to everyday life, housing, collective spaces, culture, art, housework / reproduction work / work of care (gender role) · Appropriation of public spaces, housing, social centre, art and culture workshops... · self-management (self organised spaces) · collective urbanization (social and cultural infrastructure) · victories · spaces of happiness (and pleasure) · … Must be noted that also the neoliberal mainstream is made of socio-spatial processes, that's why probably It could be better to call the layer 3 "spaces of socio-spatial Injustice". We could have two kind of categories: 1. what we can observe on spaces in term of absolute, relative and relational spaces; 2. the relation of 1 with public policies or social processes (less institutionalized than the public policies) It is easier to mapping when we have objects in the space (absolute space) or flux (relative space). The relational space need conceptual mapping. What look as an abstract process, as public policies, privatisation of common, corruption have some result on the ground (mainly social segregation, destruction of environment and common good or enclosure of common goods that become inaccessible, that can be mapped). We can map “results” (that very often are also processes) and policies / politics / or social processes that provoke that results. For example a privatization promoted by a public policy can result in social segregation. Gentrification is a social process that have results on the ground. ---- 1 Luisa Muraro a feminist philosopher of the “differences” analyzing the fights of the seventieth note: “What for a men was a revolution, for a women cannot be renounced....the signification of the sexual difference cannot go without transgression, without subversion of the existing. Cannot be trace out from the received symbolic order...Otherwise, bringing forth the sexual difference would be a useless archaism...” (L.Muraro, Al mercato della felicità, Mondadori, Milano, 2009, p..95), Translation is mine. 2 Placing a category in a specific layer is an issue of interpretation… for example, if informality is the condition upon which the neoliberal model rests and adjusts in a given city or if informality is intensified or transformed due to the neoliberal model… or both 3 This is the ‘code’ name of a recent regulation voted by the Greek parliament that intends to facilitate big (not defined) investments (not defined) in areas of interest in Greece accelerating control and permission processes, violating local regulations if necessary etc.